Are Catholics creationists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eucharisted
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
I said that geologists are getting used to the idea of catastrophism and so should you. You can now see why.
Click to expand...
Of course there are and have been geological catastrophes. What’s your point?
 
grannymh said:
Therefore, the possibility of two sole parents of the human species does exist. Blessings,granny.
Click to expand...
Granny, will you be proposing this thesis to 2010 meeting of the American Society of Genetics? If you have a theory about a single set of human parents – a theory supported by substantial genetic evidence – perhaps it is important that you share it with the scientific community. If you are reluctant to share it, is this because you doubt that it is a cogent theory after all?

StAnastasia
 
Darryl1958 said:
The theological battle of primary importance is against those who erroneously believe that questions pertaining to the spiritual dimensions are answerable through empirical science. Because science by definition can not ask why or to what ends, it is an error to assume that anything outside of the realm of scientific enquiry does not exist.
Click to expand...
Darryl, I agree with you for the most part,. However, what would you say to the work of Barbara Hagerty in The Fingerprints of God, who explores both the spiritual and the scientific dimensions of apparently “transcendent” experiences?

StAnastasia
 
buffalo said:
I am delighted you agree.👍
Click to expand...
Good. Catastrophes are significant to geology; I work with a geologist who specializes in earthquakes and volcanoes in the Cascadia Subduction zone. There are both uniformitarian and catastrophic aspects of the geological history of the Pacific Northwest.
 
StAnastasia said:
Granny, will you be proposing this thesis to 2010 meeting of the American Society of Genetics? If you have a theory about a single set of human parents – a theory supported by substantial genetic evidence – perhaps it is important that you share it with the scientific community. If you are reluctant to share it, is this because you doubt that it is a cogent theory after all?

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Before proceeding further,

Is the definition of bottleneck theory in post 56 correct?

I have a shorter definition from the Berkeley, Understanding Evolution website: a bottleneck is “An event in which a population’s size is greatly reduced.” It goes on to talk about genetic drift, gene frequencies, lost genes and founder effect.

Since a bottleneck is an event in a population’s history, it is non-informative about the point of origin of the fully completed human. This means that the research papers on genetic back tracking should be reviewed to see if there is evidence regarding the point of origin of the fully completed human being.

Please note: It is important that the scientific community share its evidence of the point of origin of the fully completed human being.

Thank you.
 
StAnastasia said:
Good. Catastrophes are significant to geology; I work with a geologist who specializes in earthquakes and volcanoes in the Cascadia Subduction zone. There are both uniformitarian and catastrophic aspects of the geological history of the Pacific Northwest.
Click to expand...
I do think your consultant should have told you about this before I did.
 
StAnastasia said:
Granny, will you be proposing this thesis to 2010 meeting of the American Society of Genetics? If you have a theory about a single set of human parents – a theory supported by substantial genetic evidence – perhaps it is important that you share it with the scientific community. If you are reluctant to share it, is this because you doubt that it is a cogent theory after all?

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
I would rather give the credit for the theory to a scientist belonging to the American Society of Genetics.
 
grannymh said:
I would rather give the credit for the theory to a scientist belonging to the American Society of Genetics.
Click to expand...
I understand, but if you’ve thought of genetic evidence that could support your Genesis theory that humans originated with one single breeding pair, perhaps you could share it with a professional, who could then run the tests, do the calculations, research the literature, and do what it takes to bring your theory to a position where it can be discussed and evaluated by other scientists. UCMP might be a good place to begin. Francisco Ayala at UC Irvine or Leslea Hlusko at UCB might be helpful.

Here’s a good collection:

Francisco J. Ayala and Walter M. Fitch, eds. Genetics and the Origin of Species: From Darwin to Molecular Biology 60 Years after Dobzhansky
National Academy Press, 1997

StAnastasia
 
StAnastasia said:
I understand, but if you’ve thought of genetic evidence that could support your Genesis theory that humans originated with one single breeding pair, perhaps you could share it with a professional, who could then run the tests, do the calculations, research the literature, and do what it takes to bring your theory to a position where it can be discussed and evaluated by other scientists. UCMP might be a good place to begin. Francisco Ayala at UC Irvine or Leslea Hlusko at UCB might be helpful.

Here’s a good collection:

Francisco J. Ayala and Walter M. Fitch, eds. Genetics and the Origin of Species: From Darwin to Molecular Biology 60 Years after Dobzhansky
National Academy Press, 1997

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
You could also listen to the recent debate between Craig and Ayala.
See how you think Ayala did. Hint: not so good.
 
Has anyone found any reference to this conference? Doesn’t seem like much more than a news release (and site) that has circulated over the internets via zenit.
 
This is an important question and an important debate.

I am agnostic in respect to Evolution. I am very confused about the issue and keep changing my mind!

I have no doubt that 99% of catholics believe in Evolution but 99% can be wrong!

I submit that I find it hard (not impossible) to reconcile the doctrines of Creation and Original Sin with The Origins of Species as expounded by Darwin and his successors.

I also readily admit that it is a big stumbling block to Faith to many (including me at times) so I pray urgently for the issue to be resolved.

I currently read a lot of the Faith movement’s literature (pro-evolution and orthodox) but also I will not shut out, nay I will respect charitably and listen with an Open Heart to the Creationist position as advanced by Hugh Thomas and Co. I believe the debate is not yet over.

I do wish people wouldn’t brush over the issue or call evolution a fact. It is an interesting hypothesis and seems more likely than Creationism but lets debate the issue in love and not resort to slander.
 
John_of_Woking said:
I do wish people wouldn’t brush over the issue or call evolution a fact. It is an interesting hypothesis and seems more likely than Creationism but lets debate the issue in love and not resort to slander.
Click to expand...
John of Woking, the biologists with whom I work speak of evolution as the most coherent explanation of biological relatedness and diverstiy; they also speak of the fact of evolution insofar as it is explained by the theory of natural selection. I am a theologian, not a scientist, and I believe it is important to distinguish between the Creationism that is the Christian doctrine of creation, held by every monotheist, and the creationism that is the anti-scientific theory of a Young Earth and recent six-day creation of all species.

StAnastasia
 
StAnastasia said:
I understand, but if you’ve thought of genetic evidence that could support your Genesis theory that humans originated with one single breeding pair, perhaps you could share it with a professional, who could then run the tests, do the calculations, research the literature, and do what it takes to bring your theory to a position where it can be discussed and evaluated by other scientists. UCMP might be a good place to begin. Francisco Ayala at UC Irvine or Leslea Hlusko at UCB might be helpful.

Here’s a good collection:

Francisco J. Ayala and Walter M. Fitch, eds. Genetics and the Origin of Species: From Darwin to Molecular Biology 60 Years after Dobzhansky
National Academy Press, 1997

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
My apology. But you are not considering the difference between the definition of the word bottleneck and a presentation of genetic evidence. Post 86 begins with a straight up question. Posts 56 and 77 also explain the definition. Thank you for the citation of the Ayala and Fitch paper.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top